United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR RICHARD McTAGGART (Solicitor) Instructed By: Messrs Thomas Graham St Ina House Fieldway Heath Cardiff CF4 4HY


 


JUDGE CLARK: The Applicant before the Cardiff Employment Tribunal, Ms Parsons, was employed by the Respondent company latterly as Sales Director from September 1996 until 15 October 1997. Following termination of her employment she presented an Originating Application to the Employment Tribunal on 10 December 1997 raising three heads of claim:

(1) wrongful dismissal

(2) unlawful sex discrimination

(3) unpaid commission.

1. The Tribunal hearing occupied seven days. Both sides were represented by a solicitor. By a reserved decision promulgated with Extended Reasons on 2 December 1998, the Tribunal found:

(1) that the claim for wrongful dismissal failed. The Applicant had been lawfully dismissed on the basis of gross misconduct, namely, attempting to poach one of the company's employees, Barry Rees, to work for a competitor.

(2) that the claim of direct sex discrimination succeeded. In respect of that claim, the Tribunal awarded the Applicant compensation for injury to feelings in the sum of £1,500.

(3) that the claim to commission succeeded to the extent of an award of £13,559.79 in the Applicant's favour.

Against that decision, the company now appeals. Five separate grounds of appeal are advanced. This is a Preliminary Hearing held to determine whether or not the appeal raises any arguable point of law.

2. The principal complaint, it seems to us, on behalf of the company is one of apparent bias on the part of the Tribunal, and in particular the Chairman, Mr Patrick Webster. Such complaints are notoriously difficult for this Appeal Tribunal to resolve. We have read the affidavit in support of this complaint sworn by Mr McTaggart, the solicitor having conduct of the company's case. We have also considered the Chairman's comments in response. In order to obtain a balanced view as to whether an impartial observer would have been left with an impression of bias against the company on the part of the Tribunal, it seems to us essential that the Applicant or more likely her representative, Miss Norman, be given an opportunity to file evidence by way of affidavit dealing with the specific matters raised by Mr McTaggart in his affidavit.
3. Further, the remaining grounds of appeal raise evidential matters to which the Applicant's response is also required. Her affidavit or the affidavit filed on her behalf should deal with the matters raised elsewhere on the grounds of appeal. It may be, as the Applicant indicates in her PHD form that reference will have to be made to the Chairman's Notes of Evidence. A copy of the Notice of Appeal should be sent to the Chairman for his specific comments on grounds 1-4, by reference to his Notes of Evidence.
4. In these circumstances we shall permit the appeal to proceed to a full appeal hearing. It simply cannot be properly dealt with on an ex-parte basis. It will be listed for one full day, Category B. We direct that the Applicant's affidavit be lodged within 28 days of the date of this order. There will be exchange of Skeleton Arguments between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Copies of those Skeleton Arguments to be lodged at the same time with this Court.